50% win-rate is the goal of the matchmaker. It always amazes me how few people actually understand this. If you stomp one game the matchmaker realizes it needs to put you in a higher elo game to have a more balanced game. If you get stomped next, it puts you into a lower MMR game. It does this until it finds an ideal spot where every game has 50/50 between the two teams, that’s the goal although it is ludicrously hard to achieve, forced 50% with a matchmaker is the wet dream for anyone designing a matchmaker.
If you continuously win even when the matchmaker puts you with/against higher and higher elo players it raises the average skill of the games drastically and sr gains to match. It does this till you reach a point where you hit that 50% win-rate or you reach a point where the matchmaker can’t find worse/better opponents to play against (depending on which end of the ladder you are at)
Fancy words. Would like credentials and proof. Cuz I can also claim to be a professional game developer and I worked on matchmaker systems like this, and it doesn’t work like how you described.
You need evidence of a forced 50/50 winrate from 100 randomly picked individuals tracking at least 100 competitive games just to even have a baseline where I might believe what you are saying.
Keep in mind that your rating can CONTINUE to increase even if you are winning 50% and losing 50% up until you reach master/grandmaster.
It is the sheer existence of an almost perfect distribution despite numerous trials that stands as evidence of behind-the-scenes-meddling.
A slow and gradual regression to a rough 50% average is quite different than what I am describing and what numerous other posts like this have all but verified.
It is you, who does not understand the ELO system, because the single biggest flaw in a traditional ELO system is the problem of unrated or inaccurately rated players climbing upward and disrupting the entire ratings food chain in the process, because with each win they are removing points from players who are ACCURATELY rated.
This is the phenomenon of “Ratings Deflation”, and it is what my first post in this thread started out with.
Any skill-rating system worth anything MUST have some mechanism that accelerates these players upwards in order to avoid having the system in perpetual chaos. This goes doubly so for a system that allows (and perhaps encourages) players to obtain new-unrated accounts.
And since it MUST exist, there MUST also be some mechanism that can differentiate between a winning streak and an inaccurately rated player.
Hence, it MUST periodically test your rating if you win too many games in a row, and this testing would come in the form of a game which is matched as though your rating was somewhat higher than it actually is.
Finally, once this “test game” has determined your correct rating, since it is unlikely to actually CHANGE your rating without introducing periodic rapid upward/downward swings, some OTHER games must exist which then put the point adjustment into action.
Two possible theories about this seem plausible:
these “adjustment games” would appear to be games that are pre-determined to be a landslide win or loss.
The system would gradually add these “adjustment” points to your rating over the course of several games, so if you are being adjusted it would cause you to gain (hypothetically) +15 instead of +10 in your next several wins, or lose -15 instead of -10 in your next several losses.
Your mistake is assuming that games are matched based solely on SR rather than MMR or some combination of the two.
SR gains after each win (not the wins themselves) are actually the thing that is supposed to motivate you to keep grinding at Competitive - despite what OP says.
You also touched on another issue - you can ‘climb’ with only a 50% winrate. I put climb in quotes because your SR is increasing but your MMR is probably staying mostly static in this scenario and the matchmaker will eventually have to bring you into line by placing you into a more challenging game.
Not true below diamond, where performance based SR kicks in. If you die a lot or play badly but still manage to win, you may only gain 16-19 SR, but if you win with few losses and good stats, you might gain 20-25. If you have a really bad game and lose, you might lose 20-25 SR as well, so if you have one meh win and then a really bad loss, you can have a net loss of SR.
I really never lost more SR than won, also I had matches which I didn’t lost a single SR and matches I lost up 25. But none of mine winning matches I won less than 30 points.
It’s nice to know, that you can win less than 25 points. But the guy who got less than 25 on win, really needs considerate not playing comp until learn some stuff. This score was around 40-80 first matches from the account? I know that takes around that number of matches in a specific mode to you start to get some more tunned MMR
It usually is because the enemy team had a smurf and/or has your team pushed into your spawn so it’s nothing but chain dying. You don’t really see that kind of stuff past gold, though.
If you think that the Overwatch matchmaking system is bad you never played CoD, every year it becomes even worst somehow, the SBMM there is crazy, the Overwatch matchmaking seems so good after playing Cold War.
Also I highly doubt OW is rigged, it may just be your SR level going up and putting you in harder matches because you are higher then before, then you’ll lose until you get to the place you need to be at, then go back up until the game realizes that you are high again and so on. It just feels like it is rigged because when you are at the skill level you should be you will most likely have a 50% winrate because once you win you are your team will have a person who is worst then the enemy in the next game, making it so you will more likely lose the game, a “random” chance between 2 things will come closer and closer to 50% the longer you go, as someone who deals with gambling you should know that, and when you are at your skill level you as a player matters less and less making it be more random if you win or lose.
You should probably say this louder for those at the back. Those that don’t think smurfing and deliberately staying at a lower rank than your actual ability is a huge problem.
Those people are feeding erroneous data into the matchmaker constantly.
The matchmaker simultaneously believes that gold players:
are new and have zero understanding of the game but are decent mechanically
were poor mechanically and have now improved
have god-like mechanics and gamesense once every 3 games and do absolutely nothing the other 2 games
The above picture was all solo queue while one tricking an off meta hero. How was I winning so much? I was on an old account that was 1 rank lower than my usual rank. That account was taken to my usual rank within a day. In other words, if you’re better than the rank you’re in you’ll win more than 50% of the time. Funny how that works out.
In terms of Overwatch? Clearly not much at all.
You’re just making excuses for why you cant climb and dont want to admit that it’s because you’re not good enough at the game.
ah yes, rigged matchmaking. the game attempts to make it a 50/50 to keep you at your rank. guess thats why I went from silver to masters. cause its ooohhhh so hard. I have no patience for people who whine like kids that: its their teammates, the matchmaking, heroes that are op. if someone trash like me can climb from borderline bottom of the barrel to around about top 3% so can you. stop claiming its everything else apart from you. and comparing a team of 6v6 too gambling is kinda crazy, when you figure out the statistics on how to quantify peoples emotional state, what pc they’ve got, whilst taking rank into account and all the other variables which you cant just replace with numbers and logistics, feel free to let the world know.
I don’t believe it to be rigged because that wouldn’t explain how the matchmaker could be all over the place.
Rigged would imply consistency even though it’s a negative one. One thing this game lacks is consistency in any direction.
The main problem of the scoring system especially for low elo the only positive feedback the SR system gives you is wins and guesses on stat above average stat performance.
There’s no indicator like in other competitive games to show you need this many wins or this much performance here to prove what rank you belong to.
And this is further shown in the obsolete requirement of placement matches.
Why even ca it that when you are going to be aced in the same rank.
Placements would be the only system I would say is rigged for players that have been competing for seasons as the results rarely change drastically.
If you have a 50% win ratio, then because you deserve to be at that rank.
If youre better than your rank, then you should be able to carry. If you only win if you have a decent team, then that means you arent good enough to climb.
I think all problems comes from the fact that the matchmaker will place everyone in gold and plat after placing in comp the first time. It was like this at the start,it is like this today.
Gold and plat is literally the rank everyone is in because of the matchmaker. Bronze skill level will never leave gold like plat/diamond skill level players will never leave gold too.
I started plat and now i am…plat. And it’s not like i didn’t improve. But somehow my SR is still the same. I gave up on comp a long time ago and i just play to have fun with friends at this point, of course still playing at my full capacity because competition is still a serious buisness for me.
The best way to rank up is to have a full stack or if you want to save time, buy ankther account.
The best and the most honest blizzard vould do is reset everything, making everyone start at 0sr, and making a more strict rank system where skill level is more distinguished and removing the ability to queue with people 3 ranks below or above you
